Open DiscussionDiscuss Tech pioneers tell FCC: 'You don't understand how the internet works' at the General Forum; Originally Posted by AZRWinger
If a fast lane is available for optimized Netflix streaming why shouldn't it cost more? Why ...

If a fast lane is available for optimized Netflix streaming why shouldn't it cost more? Why should everyone else have to pay for fast lane access even nonsubscribers or government regulation make the fast lane connection forbidden? That is the opposite of freedom and innovation.

That has nothing to do with Net Neutrality, nor is that how the internet works. I will try to explain it to you in layman's terms since you obviously don't know what you are talking about it. Data from Netflx will never go faster into the customer's pc than what speed plan the customer has with their ISP. In other words if you are paying your ISP for 7 megabytes a second then data from Netflix will never go faster than 7 megabytes, if you are paying for 1 megabyte a second then data from Netflix will never go faster than 1 megabyte a second into your computer. What Net Neutrality says is if you are paying for 7 megabytes a second then your ISP can not slow you down because you are accessing certain websites, nor can they block you from certain websites.

__________________
"There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn’t an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag… We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language… and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people.”—Theodore Roosevelt

The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to jamesrage For This Useful Post:

You need to keep the goalposts in one position instead of incessantly trying to move them...

Are you or are you not trying to argue (with absolutely no evidence, despite repeated requests) that charging companies like Netflix internet maintenance needs to occur?
Yes or No?

My point is INTERNET MAINTENANCE DOES NOT NEED that. The internet has not only been maintained but grown in both expansion of areas of coverage and speed of coverage for decades without having to charge internet sites extra for what consumers already pay for.

If you want to fixate on "streaming", youtube was created in February 2005.
Google bought the site in 2006.
For many years, it has existed without being charged extra for streaming.
But you claim it's necessary...

Quote:

Originally Posted by GottaGo

Look at how many small cable companies no longer exist, or were eaten up by the big boys. Perhaps you should be more concerned with that, then attempting to drag me down one of your absurd rabbit holes.

When I talk about how monopolies in the industry are a serious problem (see previous posts), obviously I am concerned about what you describe.

But regardless of that, your comments are yet another goalpost move.What do small cable companies being able to grow / exist have to do with reasoning for REVOKING net neutrality?
The reasons the smaller internet companies are being stamped out will not be helped by giving Comcast the capability to charge Netflix money for what Comcast is already getting paid for by the consumers...
The root of the problem (the monopoly itself) needs to be attacked. Net Neutrality's end will not aid small internet companies.
If you want to be serious about that subject (instead of just throwing out lame / inaccurate justifications for ending net neutrality), then you need to read the below articleWhy Starting A Competitor To Comcast Is Basically Impossible

Quote:

Originally Posted by GottaGo

You can wait until you're blue in the face for 'proof' of the costs of building and upgrading equipment, but capital expenditures can give even the most basic math minded person an idea.

As predicted, you didn't answer the actual challenge presented.YOU are trying to claim charging netflix extra for internet usage is needed for internet maintenance.
What you provided has absolutely nothing to do with validating the argument you actually made.

And all that happened without charging netflix or youtube extra, didn't it...
Which helps prove that it's not needed.

__________________
“Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.”
~Abraham Lincoln

Wow, that's quite an imagination. Conveniently ignored is the army of Federal internet cops required with full access to everyone's browsing history to protect us against this imaginary problem. Thanks for illustrating how net neutrality regulations would mushroom from cracking down on those unfair ISP to every router in the land.

And of course Netflix would go along with this secret extortion by the landlord. Yeah sure.

What am I ignoring? If you think the Feds don't already have full access to everyone's browsing history you are fooling yourselves. Congress passed a law last year that said ISPs could sell users history. Did you support that?

In my example the Landlord IS the ISP for his building. The only difference between my example and everywhere else is your ISP isn't usually your landlord.

And no of course Netflix wouldn't go along with the secret extortion for 150 users. But THEY did capitulate to Comcast for services requested by THEIR customers. So yeah, they would if it effected enough of their business.

You all keep talking about a "Service' unfairly using ISPs bandwith. As if the "services" aren't being REQUESTED by the CUSTOMERS paying the ISPs for ACCESS to the internet so they can GET to these SERVICES.

The ISPs fighting net neutrality (interestingly enough not ALL of them) want to DOUBLE bill. FIRST their customer and then the service THEIR CUSTOMER wants access to.

If you hired me to pick up a package for you, you think it would be OK for me to tell the person I was picking it up from, that if they wanted it delivered very fast they needed to pay me too?

Data from Netflx will never go faster into the customer's pc than what speed plan the customer has with their ISP. In other words if you are paying your ISP for 7 megabytes a second then data from Netflix will never go faster than 7 megabytes, if you are paying for 1 megabyte a second then data from Netflix will never go faster than 1 megabyte a second into your computer. What Net Neutrality says is if you are paying for 7 megabytes a second then your ISP can not slow you down because you are accessing certain websites, nor can they block you from certain websites.

You need to keep the goalposts in one position instead of incessantly trying to move them...

Are you or are you not trying to argue (with absolutely no evidence, despite repeated requests) that charging companies like Netflix internet maintenance needs to occur?
Yes or No?

My point is INTERNET MAINTENANCE DOES NOT NEED that. The internet has not only been maintained but grown in both expansion of areas of coverage and speed of coverage for decades without having to charge internet sites extra for what consumers already pay for.

If you want to fixate on "streaming", youtube was created in February 2005.
Google bought the site in 2006.
For many years, it has existed without being charged extra for streaming.
But you claim it's necessary...

When I talk about how monopolies in the industry are a serious problem (see previous posts), obviously I am concerned about what you describe.

But regardless of that, your comments are yet another goalpost move.What do small cable companies being able to grow / exist have to do with reasoning for REVOKING net neutrality?
The reasons the smaller internet companies are being stamped out will not be helped by giving Comcast the capability to charge Netflix money for what Comcast is already getting paid for by the consumers...
The root of the problem (the monopoly itself) needs to be attacked. Net Neutrality's end will not aid small internet companies.
If you want to be serious about that subject (instead of just throwing out lame / inaccurate justifications for ending net neutrality), then you need to read the below articleWhy Starting A Competitor To Comcast Is Basically Impossible

As predicted, you didn't answer the actual challenge presented.YOU are trying to claim charging netflix extra for internet usage is needed for internet maintenance.
What you provided has absolutely nothing to do with validating the argument you actually made.

And all that happened without charging netflix or youtube extra, didn't it...
Which helps prove that it's not needed.

You are clueless when it comes to the costs even though I provided a link to a capex for cable companies, and the whole point of upgrading equipment so the customer gets the speed that they pay for, and it's obviously pointless to try and explain it to you.

Think about it next time your internet slows down during streaming content, WHY it slows down.

__________________Your life is the sum total of the choices you make.If you can't laugh at yourself, you might as well get embalmed

Now you're trying to nitpick on wording to ignore intent and to insult me.
Maintaining the internet would obviously include equipment maintenance and upgrades. In my post, I talked about the internet being "... maintained but grown in both expansion of areas of coverage and speed of coverage for decades without having to charge internet sites extra for what consumers already pay for"
I shouldn't need to use more words just so you don't misunderstand to comprehend that includes "physical equipment maintenance and upgrades".

To anybody who was actually willing to discuss the topic, that would have been straight-forward.
More and more, you are shifting the boundaries and refusing to defend your simplistic claims which you cannot substantiate.

Quote:

Originally Posted by GottaGo

You are clueless when it comes to the costs even though I provided a link to a capex for cable companies, and the whole point of upgrading equipment so the customer gets the speed that they pay for, and it's obviously pointless to try and explain it to you.
Think about it next time your internet slows down during streaming content, WHY it slows down.

At this stage, I invite the viewing audience to recognize "GottaGo" has completely devolved away from the actual topic.
There is not even an attempt to tie into the actual topic.

He claimed that ISPs NEEDED to be able to charge streaming sites like Netflix more in order to maintain the internet.
And now all he can do is argue something that nobody argued against. That the ISPs have been doing that all along. The ISPs have been maintaining the internet for decades WITHOUT charging sites like youtube or netflix a dime.

Obvious logical conclusion? It's NOT needed.
Which is why GottaGo is desperate to change the subject...

__________________
“Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.”
~Abraham Lincoln

You did not answer the questions.
You claimed ISPs being able to charge companies like Netflix money was necessary for internet maintenance.
You still have not documented that.

All you did was show existing internet maintenance exists, which is not what was being requested.

Now you're trying to nitpick on wording to ignore intent and to insult me.
Maintaining the internet would obviously include equipment maintenance and upgrades. In my post, I talked about the internet being "... maintained but grown in both expansion of areas of coverage and speed of coverage for decades without having to charge internet sites extra for what consumers already pay for"
I shouldn't need to use more words just so you don't misunderstand to comprehend that includes "physical equipment maintenance and upgrades".

To anybody who was actually willing to discuss the topic, that would have been straight-forward.
More and more, you are shifting the boundaries and refusing to defend your simplistic claims which you cannot substantiate.

At this stage, I invite the viewing audience to recognize "GottaGo" has completely devolved away from the actual topic.
There is not even an attempt to tie into the actual topic.

He claimed that ISPs NEEDED to be able to charge streaming sites like Netflix more in order to maintain the internet.
And now all he can do is argue something that nobody argued against. That the ISPs have been doing that all along. The ISPs have been maintaining the internet for decades WITHOUT charging sites like youtube or netflix a dime.

Obvious logical conclusion? It's NOT needed.
Which is why GottaGo is desperate to change the subject...

I'm not sure how much more clearly I could say this, since you do your verbage dance and then expect people to answer your questions, then claim they have moved goal posts.

I have not diverted from the topic I started with, you have.

You have blatantly, willfully ignored information and explanations I have provided, because they did not meet your expectations. False, I did not say ISPs.

When company X provides a service that uses more bandwidth then the average amount, and that service becomes wildly popular, the physical equipment needs to be upgraded and expanded so there is no drop off in internet access.

NN prevents transmission companies (usually cable companies) from charging such companies more. Bottom line, they use more bandwidth to transmit their service, but they cannot be charged more for their access under NN. As Company X expands and requires more and more bandwidth, equipment (head ins, glass lines, towers, nodes) must be upgraded and installed, but the cable company is the one who pays for it, not Company X.

One telephone pole costs a cable/fiber company $500 to purchase and install. Count the number of telephone poles next time you are out and about. Shall I scan in an invoice or two for you? I guess the capex doesn't mean anything to you, since apparently you can't comprehend that extra usage of bandwidth equals additional equipment.

Good God, learn something about the subject.

__________________Your life is the sum total of the choices you make.If you can't laugh at yourself, you might as well get embalmed

You did not answer the questions.
You claimed ISPs being able to charge companies like Netflix money was necessary for internet maintenance.
You still have not documented that.

All you did was show existing internet maintenance exists, which is not what was being requested.

Now you're trying to nitpick on wording to ignore intent and to insult me.
Maintaining the internet would obviously include equipment maintenance and upgrades. In my post, I talked about the internet being "... maintained but grown in both expansion of areas of coverage and speed of coverage for decades without having to charge internet sites extra for what consumers already pay for"
I shouldn't need to use more words just so you don't misunderstand to comprehend that includes "physical equipment maintenance and upgrades".

To anybody who was actually willing to discuss the topic, that would have been straight-forward.
More and more, you are shifting the boundaries and refusing to defend your simplistic claims which you cannot substantiate.

At this stage, I invite the viewing audience to recognize "GottaGo" has completely devolved away from the actual topic.
There is not even an attempt to tie into the actual topic.

He claimed that ISPs NEEDED to be able to charge streaming sites like Netflix more in order to maintain the internet.
And now all he can do is argue something that nobody argued against. That the ISPs have been doing that all along. The ISPs have been maintaining the internet for decades WITHOUT charging sites like youtube or netflix a dime.

Obvious logical conclusion? It's NOT needed.
Which is why GottaGo is desperate to change the subject...

So If the cable company looses subscribers, but streaming video increases, with revenue losses to the cable company, and NN prevents them from charging more for those who are using their equipment, then exactly how could you see NN as a 'good thing'?

__________________Your life is the sum total of the choices you make.If you can't laugh at yourself, you might as well get embalmed

So If the cable company looses subscribers, but streaming video increases, with revenue losses to the cable company, and NN prevents them from charging more for those who are using their equipment, then exactly how could you see NN as a 'good thing'?

direct tv is now online. you can get it through wifi. If they want to supply cable for internet they don't have to do any upgrades other than regular maintenance which once installed they rarely do anyway. maybe if there's a storm. So they charge for internet. If their cable tv is becoming less popular they can do like everyone else and sell a packet on the internet-which they already do. If they don't they will go the way of Blockbuster.
Doesn't cost the cable company anymore or less for more Netflix subscribers. Or for political wrinkles members, or for facebook browsing, or for gaming, or for Hulu...

direct tv is now online. you can get it through wifi. If they want to supply cable for internet they don't have to do any upgrades other than regular maintenance which once installed they rarely do anyway. maybe if there's a storm. So they charge for internet. If their cable tv is becoming less popular they can do like everyone else and sell a packet on the internet-which they already do. If they don't they will go the way of Blockbuster.
Doesn't cost the cable company anymore or less for more Netflix subscribers. Or for political wrinkles members, or for facebook browsing, or for gaming, or for Hulu...

Be it that the world looked at the situation as simply as you do. You flip a switch, and you have lights, of course it's as simple as that.

No Salty, if you have any understanding of it at all, you know that it's not. But I won't waste my breath or time.....

__________________Your life is the sum total of the choices you make.If you can't laugh at yourself, you might as well get embalmed